Talk:Zeugma
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Requested move 17 May 2021
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 07:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Zeugma (disambiguation) → Zeugma – Zeugma currently redirects to Zeugma and syllepsis, but I don't think that article is a primary topic over Zeugma (Commagene). Looking at the pageviews (Zeugma and syllepsis, Zeugma (Commagene)), the ratio between the two normally fluctuates between 4:1 and 2:1 in favour of Zeugma and syllepsis, which I don't think is enough; and right now, Zeugma (Commagene) has far more pageviews than the other, because it's in the news. This is of course temporary, but it will most likely happen again in the future if/when another mosaic is uncovered there. In conclusion, no primary topic, so Zeugma should be the disambiguation page. Lennart97 (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support although the views for Zeugma (Commagene) spiked in the last few days I still don't think its likely that there is a primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Page views need to be considered in the long-term, and they don't support the nom's argument:[1] Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Shhhnotsoloud: Starting from Sep 2019 - shortly after the current version of Zeugma (Commagene) was created and when it reached a more or less stable number of views - the ratio has varied anywhere between 4.6:1 and 1.7:1, so my "normally fluctuates between 4:1 and 2:1" was reasonably accurate. Maybe you could argue by pageviews alone that the figure of speech is the primary topic if the ratio were consistently 4:1 or more, but it isn't, and even then it would be questionable. I'd be interested to hear if there are any non-pageviews-related arguments in favour of the figure of speech as the primary topic. Lennart97 (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nomination and Crouch, Swale. There are six entries at the Zeugma (disambiguation) page and the significance attributed to the figure of speech is not so overwhelming as to surpass the combined notability of all the other uses combined. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)